Petraeus and Bhengazi

Adequate security can not be provided without the proper funding NG. Security ain't free. Originally Posted by markroxny

Once again, you ignorant fuck, the facts are lined up against you and the rest of your Kool Aid League. Your arguments to deflect are bogus.

In testimony Wednesday [10 October 2012] before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was questioned:

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...katrina-trinko

I see you didn't quote this part tho IBLyin

Charlene Lamb denies the State Department didn’t secure the Benghazi diplomatic post sufficiently. “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon.”

see, you keep reminding everyone of the danger present at Bengazi, and who had been attacked AND pulled up stakes and left the region ... yet Stevens decided to go visit anyway ... under whos orders? and why? Did the WH give him specific orders? The State Dept? The CIA? The Pentagon?

supposedly ...

Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets. Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks
The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks. The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.


exactly WHAT type of security would it have taken to stop an assault of that nature ? Did Bengazi warrant that type of security 24/7 365? or do we simply detach a large security team everytime the ambassador decided to venture away from the Embassy and make a visit to the consulate?

I get it alright ... the rightwingers are operating on talking points and are too stupid to take the entire picture into full light .. so what else is new. Originally Posted by CJ7

One squad of U.S. Marines with assigned weapons!!!! After they killed the first forty or fifty attackers, the rest would have hauled ass!!!!

Outnumbered, but not outgunned
Marines overcome 8-to-1 odds during an 8-hour battle
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Dec 21, 2008 9:35:53 EST

More than 50 enemy fighters were killed in the battle, and several more wounded, Marine officials said. A single Marine corporal, serving as the unit’s designated marksman, killed 20 insurgents by himself, using only 20 shots to do it.

The estimated 30 Marines involved, on the other hand, rolled away relatively unscathed. No Marines were killed and only one was wounded in the battle, the platoon commander said.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/1...Kills_122108w/

Krauthammmer summarizes the Susan Rice lie............

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/kr...f-indignation/

see, you keep reminding everyone of the danger present at Bengazi, and who had been attacked AND pulled up stakes and left the region ... yet Stevens decided to go visit anyway ... under whos orders? and why? Did the WH give him specific orders? The State Dept? The CIA? The Pentagon?

supposedly ...

Between 125 and 150 gunmen, "some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants," are reported to have participated in the assault. Some had their faces covered and wore flak jackets. Weapons they used during the attack included rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, AK-47 and FN F2000 NATO assault rifles, diesel canisters, mortars, and heavy machine guns and artillery mounted on gun trucks
The assault began at nightfall, with the attackers sealing off streets leading to the main compound with gun trucks. The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi.


exactly WHAT type of security would it have taken to stop an assault of that nature ? Did Bengazi warrant that type of security 24/7 365? or do we simply detach a large security team everytime the ambassador decided to venture away from the Embassy and make a visit to the consulate?

I get it alright ... the rightwingers are operating on talking points and are too stupid to take the entire picture into full light .. so what else is new. Originally Posted by CJ7

You don't cite where you get your facts about the number of attackers, but my guess would be Wikipedia. Right? Not the most reliable source out there. Your source states that there was between 125 and 150 attackers. My source says there were between 35 and 40 attackers involved in the first wave of attacks at the consulate. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...qaeda-in-iraq/

Regardless of how many actual attackers there were, if the consulate had been adequately fortified and manned by armed American guards, with more than just pea shooter pistols, they could have held off a larger force. Their primary job would have been to protect the Ambassador and the other consulate official there. If necessary they could have moved these officials to the more heavily fortified CIA Annex.

But you miss the larger point here, The consulate was left with no security even after previous attacks. The Ambassador and other the official were left to fend for themselves.

I see you didn't quote this part tho IBLyin Originally Posted by markroxny

You-be-ignorant and lyin, marks-rocks-with-pee. It was the Dims that set the budget for the State Department: check your facts, asshole. The Republicans couldn't get their budget through. The other thing you-be-lying about, marks-rocks-with-pee, Assistant Secretary Lamb, Secretary Hillary the Bitch and Odumbo purposefully guaranteed the "correct number of assets in Benghazi" was "artificially low", dumb-ass!


"State Department official Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi 'artificially low.'"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89815N20121009

APPEASEMENT!!!

Krauthammmer summarizes the Susan Rice lie............

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/kr...f-indignation/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

This is the same guy who along with you predicted a Romney landslide right?

I don't see much in the article about Rice lying, just a lot of him bitching about Obama's reaction to being asked about it at the press conference.

If you are given information that something probably happened because of a video, and that's the only info you have, and you go out and say, "the best info we have right now is that it was because of the video" how is that a "lie"? Misinformed, yes. Lying? No!

But you miss the larger point here, The consulate was left with no security even after previous attacks. The Ambassador and other the official were left to fend for themselves. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Worse! Security was reduced! APPEASEMENT!!!




Other sources report there were around 80 attackers.

You don't cite where you get your facts, but my guess would be Wikipedia. Right? Not the most reliable source out there. Your source states that there was between 125 and 150 attackers. My source says there were between 35 and 40 attackers involved in the first wave of attacks at the consulate. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...qaeda-in-iraq/

Regardless of how many actual attackers there were, if the consulate had been adequately fortified and manned by armed American guards, with more than just pea shooter pistols, they could have held off a larger force. There primary job would have been to protect the Ambassador and the other consulate official there. If necessary they could move these officials to the more heavily fortified CIA Annex.

But you miss the larger point here, The consulate was left with no security even after previous attacks. The Ambassador and other the official were left to fend for themselves. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

you refuse to detail the previous attacks and explain why Stevens marched head on into the eye of the tiger knowing full well there was no extra security there ... the consulate is not the Embassy .. I ask you what type of security Bengazi warranted and under what circumstances ...


and for the record, I specifically started the account of the attack with "supposedly"


I digress ...


But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this


so lets call Stevens a difficult decision made by the House Republicans

you refuse to detail the previous attacks and explain why Stevens marched head on into the eye of the tiger knowing full well there was no extra security there ... the consulate is not the Embassy .. I ask you what type of security Bengazi warranted and under what circumstances ...


and for the record, I specifically started the account of the attack with "supposedly"


I digress ...


But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

O’BRIEN: Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have — think about this — 15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, private army there for President Obama in Baghdad.
And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices how to prioritize this


so lets call Stevens a difficult decision made by the House Republicans

Originally Posted by CJ7

Yeah, "supposedly" pretty much sums up most of your posts.

Adequate security can not be provided without the proper funding NG. Security ain't free.

Originally Posted by markroxny

I am posting this for the 3rd time for the benefit of Markroxny and CBJ7 and any other knuckleheads out there who think that the lack of funding was responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/...t-responsible/

Funding for worldwide security protection has more than doubled in the last decade.

When you compare the FY 2011 funds for embassy security with the estimated FY 2012 funds, there does appear to be a slight reduction in funds. But when you add the FY 2012 funds available from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund to the equation, there is a slight net increase in the estimated funds available in FY 2012 for worldwide security protection.

So this argument that the Republicans cut of embassy funds are responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi is nothing but a red herring to deflect blame away from the Obama administration and State Department.

Isn't it amazing how low the liberals will sink and much they will distort to defend their Messiah, Obama? Even at the expense of American lives. It is shameful.

Stevens is at fault for his own death. And the seals are responsible for their own deaths, because they tried to protect him.

Gawd. How do you people sleep at night?

I am posting this for the 3rd time for the benefit of Markroxny and CBJ7 and any other knuckleheads out there who think that the lack of funding was responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/...t-responsible/

Funding for worldwide security protection has more than doubled in the last decade.

When you compare the FY 2011 funds for embassy security with the estimated FY 2012 funds, there does appear to be a slight reduction in funds. But when you add the FY 2012 funds available from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund to the equation, there is a slight net increase in the estimated funds available in FY 2012 for worldwide security protection.

So this argument that the Republicans cut of embassy funds are responsible for the lack of security in Benghazi is nothing but a red herring to deflect blame away from the Obama administration and State Department. Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

once again, I dont blame the lack of funding for anything, its simply a part of the scenario that gets bypassed in the talking point memo ...

and you still refuse to answer who sent stevens to Bengazi AWAY from the EMBASSY to an outpost consulate konwing he had no extra protection in the midst of recent attacks (that you refuse to define too) and political turmoil ...

once again, I dont blame the lack of funding for anything, its simply a part of the scenario that gets bypassed in the talking point memo ...

and you still refuse to answer who sent stevens to Bengazi AWAY from the EMBASSY to an outpost consulate konwing he had no extra protection in the midst of recent attacks (that you refuse to define too) and political turmoil ... Originally Posted by CJ7

You don't blame the lack of funding for anything? Really? You need to re-read your own post #54. "So let's call Stevens a difficult decision made by the House Republicans". Man, you are so full of shit. You say one thing in 1 post and then turn around and deny it in the next post.

You, like your dimwitted friend, Ekim, have sunk to a new low on this board by suggesting that Ambassador Stevens was responsible for his own death by making the decision to go to the Benghazi consulate without security protection, even though he had asked for it several times previously and was denied each and every time. Despicable!

You don't blame the lack of funding for anything? Really? You need to re-read your own post #54. "So let's call Stevens a difficult decision made by the House Republicans". Man, you are so full of shit. You say one thing in 1 post and then turn around and deny it in the next post.

You, like your dimwitted friend, Ekim, have sunk to a new low on this board by suggesting that Ambassador Stevens was responsible for his own death by making the decision to go to the Benghazi consulate without protection, even though he had asked for it several times previously and was denied each and every time. Despicable! Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

still refuse to answer my questions, and try and spin around them ..

for the last time

who sent Stevens away from thre protection at the Embassy to an outpost consulate in Bengazi ?? .. why did stevens go to bengazi knowing he had no extra protection?


give the timelines of the previous attacks, and the damage/injuries etc that would warrant a FULL TIME military presence other than the personell already at Bengazi.